This will be my only story!
by I AM ZE BETA
Summary: This will be my only story


Will everybody please ignore the entirety of this page, I am publishing this as a story so I can become a new beta for my friend, I am a beta not a writer. Now I will post randomness to fill the necessary six thousand words so I can beta.

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

AP US Government xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period 7 April 17, 2013 Senior in high school Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought .38 pistol loaded with 5 cartridges to his school, intending to sell it for $40 to a friend. The school received an anonymous tip about the gun. Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, and 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts. Lopez was convicted, but appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, they overturned his conviction, stating that the USC 922 exceeded the powers of the Congress to create under the Commerce Clause.

The government argued that having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. having a weapon in an educational area such as a school would likely lead to a violent crime, which would damage the economy in 2 ways. First, violent crime as a whole raises insurance costs which spreads through the economy creating mass inflation. Second, by limiting parents' willingness to send their kids to an area they deem to be unsafe. The Government argued that weapons such as firearms in schools would be considered dangerous, resulting in student's terror. In turn, this would inhibit the learning environment needed to function. This in turn would lead to an overall weaker economy as education has been linked to financial health.

The Court, found the Government's arguments to be the start of an incredibly slippery slope: anything could be made to seem dangerous, and therefore fall under the Commerce Clause. Therefore Congress could regulate any activity that had any relation, no matter how slight to economic productivity.

AP US Government Period 7 April 17, 2013

The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was argued on November 11, 1994. And on April 5, 1995 SCOTUS announced their decision 5-4 in favor the United States. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist all voted for the United States. Rehnquist wrote the Majority opinion, while Thomas, and Kennedy both wrote concurrences. Justices Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter voted for Lopez, and against the US. Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg all wrote dissents explaining their votes.

In his Majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:

the channels of interstate commerce,

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,

activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

This case was the first one since the New Deal, to have set limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

Or in simpler terms, this is as far as the Court was willing to go in expanding the powers of the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS was well aware that to conclude the case without limiting Congress' power was to invite more cases on an even broader scale into their courtroom. Thus Rehnquist added this paragraph to the end of his Opinion.

US v. Lopez raised questions as to how far the Court might go in increasing the power of the Commerce Clause. Luckily the quick thinking Rehnquist and his Court were able to deal justice efficiently, and still keep the power of Congress under control.

Works cited

Thanks for your time

-_I AM ZE BETA _


End file.
